Based on Powerline's suspicions of forgery over the documents put forth regarding George W. Bushs National Guard service, I decided to do some legwork and track down the opinions of forensic document examiners that may have an expertise in old typefaces.

After contacting several experts, a rather notable Forensic Document Examiner named Dr. Philip Bouffard took the time to examine a pdf of the documents and perform an initial visual analysis of their authenticity. Dr. Bouffard has a PhD in Chemistry from the University of Michigan, but got involved in forensic examination of typefaces after working in graphics with NCR until 1973 and taking a two-year Certification Program in Document Examination at Georgetown University. After completing the program, he became specifically interested in typewriter classification and went to work for a prosecutors crime lab in Lake County, Ohio.

Using something called the Haas Atlas, the definitive collection of various typefaces, Mr. Bouffard (and other forensic document examiners) examined the veracity of various documents for over 30 years. Beginning in 1988, Mr. Bouffard hired a programmer to write a computer database program that catalogues the nearly 4,000 typefaces that appear in the Haas Atlas. This computer program is now a forensic standard that is sold as a companion to the Haas Atlas by American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE).

UPDATE: The name of the program that Dr. Bouffard developed is called "The Typewriter Typestyle Classification Program" (C:\TYPE).

What did Dr. Bouffard think of the documents?

First, the necessary caveats:

 The pdf document is of poor quality. It seems to have been copied and recopied several times, blurring letter characteristics.

 Also, certain types of analysis can only be done on the original documents, which dont seem to be available, even to CBS.

So Dr. Bouffard is very clear that his analysis is not 100% positive. That being said

Its just possible that this might be a Times Roman font, which means that it would have been created on a computer. Its very possible that someone decided to create this document on a computer... Ive run across this situation before my gut is this could just well be a fabrication.

The reasons why?

 Right off the bat, Dr. Bouffard noted what others in the blogosphere have been talking about  something called proportional spacing, which means that each letter does not take up the same amount of width on the page. On old typewriters that do not have proportional spacing, the letter i would be as wide as the letter m. Except for professional typesetting, proportional spacing was only available on a very few models (an IBM model, "Composer" and perhaps one or two other models) that were not widely available in 1972-73; the vast majority of typewriters did not have proportional spacing. Because of this, Dr. Bouffards computer program immediately eliminated over 90% of the possible fonts from typewriters that could create such a document, narrowing it down to perhaps 15 fonts used by a very few models.

 Next, Dr. Bouffard began entering individual characters in an attempt to match them to the remaining fonts that were available on proportional spacing typewriters of that era, focusing on numbers. Thus far, one character stood out, the number 4. In the document provided by CBS News, the number 4 does not "have a foot" and has a closed top, which is indicative of Times New Roman, a font exclusive to more modern computer word processing programs. other characters matched the old proportional spacing fonts (available on only a small few typewriters of the era), but this number did not (please note that this is only an initial analysis with numerical characters).

Dr. Bouffard ran this number and could not find a match in his entire database of over 4,000 typewriter fonts that have been maintained and collected into his computer database since 1988. Otherwise, the font is very indicative of Times New Roman, the font that is only available on computer word processing programs.

The final word?

Once again, lets not forget the qualifications: it's a bad copy of a copy and we have no original document for review, but, based on the initial analysis of the documents by an industry expert with over 30 years of experience in typesetting and forensic document examination, the documents could just well be a fabrication.

In light of this information, I think that it would be highly appropriate for CBS News and the Boston Globe to attempt to obtain a copy of the original document for more thorough vetting, and run a correction/addendum to the story.

I still have two other forensic document examiners that are examining the pdf file, and I will update if/when they get back to me. I also plan to ask Dr. Bouffard more detail about the nature of the "th" on the end of dates, though in our first conversation he indicated that some typewriters had the capability to do something in that format.

UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard called me again, and after further analysis, he says that he's pretty certain that it's a fake.

Here's why

* He looked through old papers he's written, and noted that he's come up against the inconsistency of the "4" several previous times with forgeries that attempt to duplicate old proportional spaced documents with a computer word processing program.

* Regarding the small "th" after the date, Dr. Bouffard told me that it was possible to order specialty keys that would duplicate the automatic miniaturization completed by word processors after a numerical date, but it was certainly not standard, and wouldn't make a lot of sense in a military setting. "That by itself, while suspicious, is not impossible, but in conjunction with the (font irregularity of the) number four, it is really significant," he said.

* Dr. Bouffard said that signature analysis isn't that relevant because the signature could have easily been copied and pasted onto one of the photocopied forgeries from another document.

* He said that he didn't know who CBS contacted to verify the document's authenticity, but that there is really only one other man that may be more qualified to determine authentic typefaces than himself. I think that the burden of proof may be on CBS to reveal this information.

I asked him to put a percentage on the chances that this was a fake, and he said that was "hard to put a number on it." I then suggested "90%?" Again he said it's "hard to put an exact number, but I'd say it's at least that high, sure. I pretty much agree that that font is Times New Roman."

I hesitate to render verdicts, but based on an initial visual analysis by one of the country's foremost forensic document analysts that specializes in old typefaces, it looks like CBS was duped.

Dr. Bouffard ran this number and could not find a match in his entire database of over 4,000 typewriter fonts that have been maintained and collected into his computer database since 1988. Otherwise, the font is very indicative of Times New Roman, the font that is only available on computer word processing programs.

And what of CBS' claim to have verified the documents before publication?

* He said that he didn't know who CBS contacted to verify the document's authenticity, but that there is really only one other man that may be more qualified to determine authentic typefaces than himself. I think that the burden of proof may be on CBS to reveal this information.

I asked him to put a percentage on the chances that this was a fake, and he said that was "hard to put a number on it." I then suggested "90%?" Again he said it's "hard to put an exact number, but I'd say it's at least that high, sure. I pretty much agree that that font is Times New Roman."

If I was a PA on 60 Minutes charged with creating the digital graphics for this story the following might happen:

After scanning the original documents I find they are illegible digitally. So I retype verbatim screen shot, bring it into PhotoShop, paste, apply a dimestore old XEROX filter, then photoshop out the signature and place it. Deadline met, the stylized graphic for production has been created. In general the networks do not require the actual document be shown, they have often in the past insisted it is ok to display the actual text in whatever format meets their production needs. So long as the content is not changed.

It needs to be confirmed that those images on the web, and in the show are images of the actual documents before this story goes on.

I am just saying we should start with the question are these the real documents? Cause these images are not consistent with the period.

Below is what I typed on my computer using word 2000, Times New Roman. This sure looks like the same as the memo being passed around to me.

19 May 1972

Memo to File

SUBJECT: Discussion with Bush, 1 st Lt Bush

1. Phone call from Bush. Discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November. I told him he could do ET for three months or transfer. Says he wants to transfer to Alabama to any unit he can get in to. Says that he is working on another campaign for his dad.

2. Physical. We talked about him getting his flight physical situation fixed before his date. Says he will do that in Alabama if he stays in a flight status. He has this campaign to do and other things that will follow and may not have the time. I advise him of our investment in him and his commitment. Hes been working with staff to come with options and identified a unit that may accept him. I told him I had to have written acceptance before he would be transferred, but think hes also talking to someone upstairs.

WOW! The blogosphere is all over this and it's running like wildfire. There's ahardly a blog out there not discussing this now.

It's difficult to keep up with it all but it seems that the biggest giveaway is not just the proportional spacing which (although rare) was available on some typewriters at the time, but the font, the line breaks which corresponds 100% to MS Word, the typeface (Times New Roman - rare or unavailable on typewriters at the time). Also, some of the language used, the abbreviations, etc. are very uncharacteristic of the military at that time.

I think someone who has extensive experience with the current versions of Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Photoshop should do an analysis of the documents CBS has. If they find out that the documents were faked there will be h*ll to pay at CBS, Boston Globe and the New York Times. Not to mention the fact that several Democratic National Committee staffers could get the boot.

By the way, IBM's proportional-font typewriters were very rare and VERY expensive back in the 1972-1973 time period. I highly doubt the Texas Air National Guard would have access to such expensive machines back then.

In order, here are the original, my document created with MS Word, and my cocument overlaid on the original. Since my photo editing program would not allow me to rotate in increments of less than one degree, I could not get it to match perfectly, but I believe that it would. But is is still a remarkable match.

21
posted on 09/09/2004 1:33:25 PM PDT
by Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)

"It would be really cool to demand a fistful of documents from the same time and same office to see if the font matches exactly"...

That should be a task that can be accomplished with a little effort. Anything that came over the Commanding officer's signature which dealt with official business should be discoverable. For instance See BS claims to have had originals of the Col's signature to compare with their documents. Where did they find it? If on an official memo or order they should produce it for comparison.

22
posted on 09/09/2004 1:34:20 PM PDT
by xkaydet65
(" You have never tasted freedom my friend, else you would know, it is purchased not with gold, but w)

Thanks for enlightening us all. No really, you raised our level of understanding of the issue to a level I personally didn't think could be achieved. You are absolutely vital to this discussion, and you deserve credit for holding CBS to their words. Without your expertise and calm help in sorting out the forgery question, we all would have been lost.

By the way, IBM's proportional-font typewriters were very rare and VERY expensive back in the 1972-1973 time period.

IBM typewriter with proportional spacing was introduced in 1941.

IBM announces the Electromatic Model 04 electric typewriter, featuring the revolutionary concept of proportional spacing. By assigning varied rather than uniform spacing to different sized characters, the Type 4 recreated the appearance of a printed page, an effect that was further enhanced by a typewriter ribbon innovation that produced clearer, sharper words on the page. The proportional spacing feature became a staple of the IBM Executive series typewriters.

On the Executive, you could optionally have removable type-bars. This is somewhat like later Smith-Corona portables which have removable type-slugs on the two outermost type-bars, with corresponding changeable keytop caps. In this case, though, it's the whole type-bar.

You are so right. What a bunch of a@#s holes. Do they think that everybody is stupid? If this doesn't show that they were done on a computer, then they are really blind and guilty of lying and of forgery.

If you fire up Word with default margins and default font (Times New Roman at 12 pts), and type the text of the memos yourself, the results are exactly the same as the pdfs of the actual memos. Characters line up with characters on adjacent lines perfectly. (I did this myself with the last memo.) It's hard to avoid the conclusion that not only are these memos fake, they're not even very good fakes. I hope this ends Rather's career.

This is so cool . . . how many times has the partisan media twisted some seemingly positive piece of information about Bush into a bizarre negative attack (like that whole yellow cake uranium fiasco, where the entire focus of the MSM was on who in the Bush Whitehouse leaked the info) . . . now the blogosphere is pulling the same thing on CBS . . . CBS thought they had nailed Bush, but now the story is all about CBS and how big of a lie they told . . . the point they tried to make has faded into the background noise, drowned out by this new hoax scandal . . . they are going to have to defend themselves, rather than attack Bush . . . sweet . . .

He'd rather let Freepers do it. It looks better while he just sits there with the cards in his hand. Whether forgeries or not, they say nothing except that Bush wished to serve, was NOT AWOL and must have been one hell of a pilot!!

He's pretty good at steering this ship, too!! He's always on Watch. God love him and protect him.

By the way, it looks to me like the way they got the specks into the document was through faxing it. Faxes do that, along with lines, and tilting.

One other thing that faxes do...they distort and "smear" document info over a surface area. Just a guess, but that could explain why some areas and even a few letters seem a little blurry. Like I said, that's just a WAG, and you'd need an expert to say for sure.

Not if these were memos to the file and not part of Bush's official record (which two were). Regarding the other two, records continue to dribble out as they are found by the military. If fake, I suspect they know the truth, but don't want to initiate any action, but would respond to questions at the daily press briefing. It would be good to know what was said at the briefing today. If these ARE fakes, they are not good ones because they were able to be reproduced quickly and exactly using common word processing fonts.

The obvious question is why would CBS would not vet them very carefully before airing them?? I know Dan Rather is in the tank for Kerry, as reported earlier. Did he run roughshod over the other producers and editors at CBS who may have counseled further investigation?? This may have been Rather's swan song and he couldn't resist it!! Could this have been a plant by some anti-CBS hoaxers who couldn't believe that CBS would go for such obvious bait?? Fun questions to ponder this afternoon.

37
posted on 09/09/2004 1:41:11 PM PDT
by CedarDave
(USCG Vietnam vet to DC from NM on 9/12 for the "Kerry Lied...While Good Men Died" rally. Join us!)

The expert was suspicious about the proportional font, but consider this: wouldn't that be the first thing anyone would notice? How smart would it be for CBS to present a document that couldn't possibly be typed in 1972?

Don't answer that.

How smart would it be for a forger to produce an impossible document that sticks out like a sore thumb, especially when ordinary military typewriters are easily available?

I respect the expert's opinion, particularly when he gets into the nuts and bolts of typeface differences. This is enough to require a look at the original document.

uh... the production rooms of networks and webmasters of news sites are still filled with computer dorks, not journalists.

Ever seen that story with a pile of documents, then one of them flies up, then a line highlights and is "pulled out" so you can read it.

You think they use the actual documents to do that? Do they make it look like "actual documents"?

Did they re-record the translators voice for the Saddam interview because they didn't like the sound of the original?

It isn't just journalists in the production room. There are creative types, producers, and production artists. Believe me it is no trouble, would only take 5 seconds, and would be done at a whim because the producer thought the original didn't look "military" enough...

Besides we cover our ass if we pitch this story as:

Are those images of the real documents? Because those documents are not period, and are forgeries...

This is an expert's opinion, based on actual font samples and not someone's half-baked assertion that typewriters couldn't do that.

At a minimum, CBS should immediately bring forward the document expert they consulted. If this is a forgery, I expect the original source of the documents will have had some flimsy pretext for demanding anonymity, but CBS's own expert is fair game.

W will ignore this amd let refutation be taken care of by folks who are not part of his campaign. He doesnt even have to tell anyone to do it. Actually I dont think we need to bother with this at all. It only has the legs we give it. Frenchie would have takenmuch less damage from the swifties if he had kept the "refutation" far from his organization.

47
posted on 09/09/2004 1:47:48 PM PDT
by arthurus
(Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE.)

Geez, even the most incompetent forger would try to match actual documents from the period.

Agreed. I was defending a couple of posters who actually knew about proportional-font typewriters and were getting slammed for raising legitimate questions. I still think there are some features of the docs that look typed. But gosh, how incompetent must CBS be, to release word-processed documents that purport to date from 1973?

48
posted on 09/09/2004 1:49:15 PM PDT
by Right Wing Professor
(www.swiftvets.com: where the truth lives on, after 35 years of Kerry lies.)

Anybody would like to guess the chances that a 1970's typewriter and a 2002 version of MS Word would yield documents that are so similar???

I'm impressed, and I've been looking at typefaces for over fourty years. Different versions of the same typeface are always a bit different. For one thing, they have to be jiggered to display pleasntly on a computer screen. Same holds for computer printers.

One thing few people know is that real (lead) fonts are tweaked for each type size. The proportions are jiggered to hold ink and look good for each size. This is not done by TrueType, and I doubt it it's done much at all in word processing.

I have catalogs of "professional" computer fonts. Some of them cost several hundred dollars for a single typeface.

What is so stunning is that Rather and friends believe that people in this country are so stupid that no one would know it was a fraud.

Think about it. We're talking about the Left here. They believe you should be out working like a pack animal and sending everything you make so they can let you live in a highrise, take public transportation to work, eating what they think you should eat, reading only what they think you should read, etc. Do they regard the masses with that much contemp? You bet they do.

50
posted on 09/09/2004 1:50:40 PM PDT
by Mad_Tom_Rackham
(You have entered a "No Girlie Men" zone. Thank you for not whining and sniveling.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.